Writing and Understanding

For the student to write explanations, in complete sentences, about every subject—whether history, literature, grammar, math, or anything else—requires that he have a true understanding of the concepts at hand. But he can often do well on multiple choice, matching, or other rote exercises with no real understanding.

Let me elaborate on this topic.

If a student’s understanding of a given idea is genuine, if he holds the idea independently and clearly sees its relationship to reality, then he can offer reasoned support for his view. In asking the students to write paragraphs and essays in every subject, we are able to emphasize this crucial aspect of thought—we demand that they give reasons for their assertions.

Far from the “every opinion is sacred” attitude learned in most all of today’s schools, our students learn that “any unsupported opinion is sacrilege.”

Several years ago, some of our older students were asked to write an essay about their opinion of school uniforms. Word about this assignment got around, and some younger students became concerned that this was a policy we were giving serious consideration. They complained to their parents, who agreed to come and discourage me from requiring uniforms.

Apparently, these 9 and 10-year-old students told their parents, “Now don’t just go in and state your opinion about school uniforms. You have to be prepared with clear reasons for your view.”

Knowing that their parents had not attended VDA, they feared this was a lesson they had not learned.

The fact that the students are universally required to support their abstract assertions means that the teacher is always able to discover how they hold those abstractions. The teacher learns not just whether the child recalls the abstract conclusion, but why he believes it is true.

Often, the child’s explanation will reveal an error in thinking. This gives the teacher an opportunity both to correct this particular error, and to point to the principle that will allow him to avoid this category of error in the future.

For example, several years ago I taught the play The Admirable Crichton, and after reading and discussing the play, I asked the students to write a description of the essence of each of the main characters.

I made an interesting discovery: they thought they understood the characters, having heard my lectures about them. But rather than giving examples to support their character analysis, many simply repeated the abstract point.

The restatements were sufficiently different from the original point that they felt like they were justifying their assertions—but in fact, they were simply saying it again, in different terms.

For example, one would assert that Ernest was self- absorbed, and then, in support of this assertion, would say, “If he had a smile on his face he was probably thinking about himself.”

Another, in support of the view that Lady Mary was “condescending,” would say, “She thought others were beneath her and not worthy of her time.”

This seemed to reflect both a failure to really understand the characters, and a failure to grasp the point that an assertion must be grounded in facts.

I had to make clear to them that what constituted proper support of their conclusions was concrete examples of the characters’ actions in the play.

I decided to illustrate this point in a memorable form. I walked into class and (making it clear that this was an exercise, and intended to prove a point), I said, “One of the teachers at this school must be fired.” Following my lead, they asked “Why?”

I responded, “Because he can’t be trusted.” Again, they said, “Why?” I replied, “Because you can never count on him.” Again, starting to get the point, they said, “Why?” and I said, “Because he is never there when you need him.”

I then asked them what was unsatisfying about my explanations, and they identified that I never in fact mentioned anything the teacher had done to warrant this evaluation.

I then applied this issue to their analysis of the characters in the play. This made it possible for them both to gain a real understanding of the characters and to learn a valuable epistemological lesson.

This lesson was only possible because of the conceptual, objective approach of the class—because I had asked them to write a clear and supported statement of their ideas.

Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy’s free, weekly e-newsletter: “Pedagogically Correct.” Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.

You might also like

About Lisa VanDamme

Lisa VanDamme (BA, philosophy, 1994, University of Texas at Austin) began her career in education when she was asked to develop a curriculum for a gifted child who was not being challenged in traditional schools. She created a program that emphasizes the core subjects, that allows students to progress to the limit of their ability, and that stresses the connection within and between subjects—and between school and life. After years of success as a homeschool teacher, she implemented her principles of education in the founding of VanDamme Academy, a private elementary and junior high school in Laguna Hills, California. At the school, Ms. VanDamme is presently responsible for administration, teacher training and curriculum supervision, and teaches grammar and literature to the junior high students. Ms. VanDamme’s theoretical work focuses on the application of Objectivism to educational theory.

Comments submitted to TOS are moderated and checked periodically. Anonymous posts are not permitted; commenters must use their real names. To be considered for posting, a comment must be civil, substantive, on topic, and no longer than 400 words. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, off-topic comments, and comments that ignore relevant points made in the article will be deleted. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.

Philosophy for Freedom and Flourishing

Shipping Fees & Policies

Print and Premium Subscriptions

Print and Premium subscriptions mailed to addresses in the United States include free shipping. Charges for Print and Premium subscriptions mailed to addresses outside the United States are as follows:

Canada or Mexico: Subscriptions to Canada or Mexico are an additional $15 per year.

Other Foreign Destinations: Subscriptions to foreign destinations other than Canada or Mexico are an additional $20 per year.

Upgrades: Shipping for an upgrade from an Online-only subscription to a Print or Premium subscription is pro-rated based on the number of issues remaining in the subscription and the shipping destination (e.g., shipping to Canada for a subscription upgrade with two issues remaining is $7.50).

Single Issues

Shipping rates for single issues of The Objective Standard are as follows:

$4 for 1 to 3 copies to a U.S. address, $1 for each additional copy;

$10 for 1 to 3 copies to Canada or Mexico, $2 for each additional copy;

$15 for 1 to 3 copies to other foreign destinations, $3 for each additional copy.

Back Issue Bundle

The Back Issue Bundle ships for free to addresses within the United States, and for $30 to other destinations.